Rajasthan High Court
Heeralal vs Chandra Ranjan on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 191/2014
1. Heeralal s/o Makhanlal, R/o 263, Scheme No.1, Arya Nagar,
Alwar.
2. Smt. Pistadevi widow of Makhanlal, R/o 263 Scheme No.1,
Arya Nagar, Alwar
----Appellants-defendants
Versus
1. Chandra Ranjan s/o Vishnu, R/o 268 Scheme No.1, Arya
Nagar, Alwar
----Plaintiff-Respondent
2. Jyoti Ranjan S/o Vishnu Sharma R/o 268, Scheme No.1, Arya
Nagar, Alwar.
3. Jyotsna Nidhi D/op Vishnu Sharma W/o Laxmi Nidhi, R/o
Jamshadpur Jaharkhand
4. Abha Sharma D/o Vishnu Sharma W/o Amnarnath Sharma,
Amar Photo, Station Road, Jaipur
5. Archna S/o Vishnu Sharma, R/o 268 Scheme No.1, Arya
Nagar, Alwar
-------Proforma-respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohammed Anees
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
29/04/2022
1. Appellants-defendants have filed this second appeal,
assailing judgment and decree dated 14.03.2014 passed by
Additional District Judge No.1 in Civil Appeal No.78/2006 whereby
following decree has been passed:-
"परिणामतः अपील अपीलार्-वादी सीीकाि ीकर की जाती ही है एव
ववदान अधीनस्थ थ नान्यायालन्याय दािा पारित आलपारित आलोच्य वनणआलोच्य निर्णन्याय एव र्णय एवं डिर्णय एवं डिणय एवं डिकर की
र्णय एवं डदनाीक 12.05.2006 अपास्त वीकन्याया जाता ही है एव वादीगण ीका वाद
ववरुद्ध प्रवतवादीगण र्णय एवं डिर्णय एवं डिीकर की वीकन्याया जाीकि प्रवतवादीगण ीकपारित आलो जरिन्यायको जरिये स्थाई
वनषको जरियेधाजा पाबन्द वीकन्याया जाता ही है वीक वपारित आलो, वादीगण ीकर की जान्यायदाद भवन
सखा 268 बाीकको जरिये स्र कीम नम्बि-1, अलवि बिग पीला म मुन्द जन्दर्जे नजे नका ीकर की
(2 of 4) [CSA-191/2014]
दकदक्षिणी दीवाि ह हरआलोच्य निर्ण ए बी सी बिग स मु सुरआलोच्य निर्ण जपारित आलो 4 हर मुट 6 इच ऊची बनी हुई
ही है, उसीकको जरिये ऊपि ीकपारित आलोई दीवाि इतार्णय एवं डद ीका वनमनिर्माण न ीकिको जरिये व दीवाि ीकपारित आलो
न्यायरावत ीकान्यायम ि हनको जरिये दको जरिये एव प्रवतवादी सन्याय ीका सुर मुला अ हाता बिग स मु सुरआलोच्य निर्ण 5
हर मुट चचौडा ह हरआलोच्य निर्ण ए बी सी िर्णय एवं डिी ई मई में भी पटाव ीकिीकको जरिये ीकपारित आलोई वनमनिर्माण न ीकिको जरिये व
इसको जरिये सुर मुला ीकान्यायम ि हनको जरिये दको जरिये। प्रवतवादीगण ीकपारित आलो जरिन्यायको जरिये आजापीक क वादको जरियेशप सको जरिये
पाबन्द वीकन्याया जाता ही है वीक उसनको जरिये जपारित आलो अवी हैध रूप सको जरिये वववार्णय एवं डदत दीवाि बिग
स मु सुरआलोच्य निर्ण ीकको जरिये ऊपि ह हरआलोच्य निर्ण ए बी स्थान पि 6 हर मुट ऊची नई दीवाि तामीि ीकि ली
ही है, ममसमाि ीकिीकको जरिये दीवाि ीकपारित आलो पूवआलोच्य निर्णवत 4 हर मुट 6 इच ऊची ीकान्यायम ीकि दको जरिये।
अपील ीका क वन्याय पदक्षिीकािान अपना अपना व हन ीकिई मेंगई में।"
2. It appears from record that both parties are neighbours and
dispute between them is in relation to raising height of boundary
wall and raising construction in the setback portion of 5 feet
behind the building. Between house of both parties, a boundary
wall to the height of 4 feet 6 inch is situated. On both sides of this
boundary wall, in respective plots of parties, the 5 feet wide
setback portion is left open. It appears that at one point of time,
appellants-defendants raised the height of boundary wall by six
feet, above to the height of 4.6 feet boundary wall as also wanted
to raise some temporary or permanent construction covering the
setback area of his plot. At that juncture, the present civil suit for
permanent injunction was filed by respondent-plaintiff seeking an
injunction in prohibitory and mandatory form that appellants-
defendants be restrained not to raise any construction either
temporary or permanent injunction in the setback area of 5 feet
left behind his plot and height of boundary wall raised above to
existing boundary wall of 4.6 feet be ordered to be removed. The
trial Court dismissed the respondent-plaintiff's suit but in first
appeal the first Appellate Court has passed the decree quoted
hereinabove.
(3 of 4) [CSA-191/2014]
3. Counsel for appellants submits that now the original plaintiff
and one of original defendant have passed away and their legal
representatives are ready and willing to enter into compromise
and not to execute the impugned decree. If that is so, it is for the
purpose to undertake any settlement out of Court.
4. As far as the impugned decree dated 14.03.2014 is
concerned, the same is well within parameters of law and the first
Appellate Court is justified in restraining the appellants-defendants
for not raising any construction either temporary or permanent to
cover the setback area of 5 feet laying behind his plot. Further the
height of boundary wall, above 4 feet 6 inch has also rightly been
ordered to be removed. The purpose of building a boundary wall is
not to obstruct the natural air and light. If height of boundary is
allowed to construct more than 4 feet 6 inch, certainly same may
obstruct, having access to natural air and light to the neighbours.
5. The Supreme Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs.
Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of
other judgments passed in case of Santosh Hazari Vs.
Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] and State Bank of
India & Ors. Vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Ors. [(2011)
12 SCC 174], has observed that as if the first Appellate Court has
passed the judgment and decree, which is a possible and plausible
view, do not suffer from any perversity and jurisdictional error, the
same need not to be interfered by the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
6. In view of discussion made hereinabove, no substantial
question of law is involved in this second appeal, the same is not
worth for admission. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(4 of 4) [CSA-191/2014]
7. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
8. Record of both the Courts below be sent back forthwith.
9. However, it is observed that the dismissal of appeal would
not come in the way of parties, if they mutually settle their inter
se dispute out of Court.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /89
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
